* Adding marriage without a spouse

[natashahouseman]

Hi all,
Not quite sure which sub-category fit, and maybe it's a normal question, but...I'm trying to stop my tree from ever expanding whilst still adding all the information and sources I have about a particular individual. My general rule of thumb is that for older generations from the 18th century and before, I'd like to add siblings, but nothing more. (In more recent generations I tend to expand that to cousins as it's quicker and surer). There are always exceptions where there is a secondary connection or an interesting route to follow, but my completer tendancies need a self imposed limit.
I thought I was good with just adding siblings baptism, marriage and burial records (where I knew them) plus a note with the name of spouse and any children I had so far identified. However, I don't seem to be able to add a marriage without a spouse and, particularly for women, the marriage is crucial to the burial record. But if I add a spouse I then feel duty bound to add their dates of baptism and burial and so it expands....It's why my ancestry tree has 9,000 people in it and there's no way I'll get all of that transferred into what I hope is my definitive FH tree.
That's the why I want to do it, my question is how? Is there a way of adding a marriage plus source, without a spouse? I am thinking maybe I'd have to create a seperate marriage event, but interested in what I might have missed.
Many thanks
Natasha

[AdrianBruce]

Slightly round the houses but I did it by adding a spouse, then adding the marriage date, then deleting the just created individual who was the spouse. You must leave the Family Record there because that's where the marriage event is kept.

Of course, the issue is that there is no obvious name for the spouse that you don't want to record - but perhaps you would be satisfied with having that in a note.

[tatewise]

Yes, you can add a Marriage without adding a spouse, but do have to link a Family record to hold the Marriage.

Open the All tab, right-click the person's name and choose Add Field > Add Family (as Spouse) > Add Link to New Family Record which will show a greyed-out Husband/Wife link that you just ignore.

Now you can add a Marriage event to the original single-parent spouse.

This is similar to the method suggested by Adrian but without creating & deleting dummy spouses.

[BillH]

How about just selecting the person you want to create a marriage for in the focus window and then go to the property box and select Add Fact. Then from the dropdown select Add Marriage, then Other Spouse, and then Create. Then Answer OK to Create a new Family record for xxx without a wife/female partner?

[tatewise]

Well I did not know that option existing thank you Bill.

[LornaCraig]

... particularly for women, the marriage is crucial to the burial record.

I assume that you will still record the spouse's name somewhere, perhaps in the note to the marriage event, because as you say it is crucial when looking for a burial record. You could also add the spouse's surname as an Alternate Name for the woman.

[natashahouseman]

Thanks all, really helpful suggestions. I am thinking about future proofing. Especially as I have discovered that her GG Grandchild married a half-sibling of another, closer, direct ancestor who falls within my "follow through cousins and hence spouces" line. I think, my best interim solution is adding the marriage source to her burial record with a note, which stands a better chance of me not duplicating families, but in other situations, less interrelated, that solution willl work well. Always something to think about!

[Jane]

Another option, is to use a flag or custom fact to "Mark" the spouse as "End of Research". This way you can record what you want about the spouse, but have a reminder that you do not intend to go further on this line.

This also gives you flexibility to change your mind, while making obvious to anyone reviewing the tree you have not attempted to search beyond this point.

[Gowermick]

... particularly for women, the marriage is crucial to the burial record.

I assume that you will still record the spouse's name somewhere, perhaps in the note to the marriage event, because as you say it is crucial when looking for a burial record. You could also add the spouse's surname as an Alternate Name for the woman.

The american custom of the specifying a womans maiden name before their married name, would seem to fit the bill. Simply append the married surname to her maiden name.
So Jennifer Brown would become Jennifer Brown Smith on marriage to John Smith

[tatewise]

Is that Jennifer /Brown Smith/ displayed as Jennifer BROWN SMITH
or is it Jennifer Brown /Smith/ displayed as Jennifer Brown SMITH?

[Gowermick]

As I'm not American, and have only seen it written as Jennifer Brown Smith, I would think either of the options you suggest would work, depending how you want them sorted in the Records window
The important bit is knowing to use SMITH when searching for a death, burial or even another marriage.

[victor]

If I don't know the spouses name I do this
Let's say husband John Brown and wife Mary (maiden name not known
I put John Brown and Mary(Brown)
or the other way
\\ Brown and Mary (Brown) if I don't know the husband's Christian name
or \\ Brown Mary Smith if I know the wife's maiden name
As soo as I find the correc names I chnge them
Victor